Relief Cannot Be Granted Against an Operative Administrative Order Without a Specific Challenge and Amendment of Pleadings

The appellant was appointed as an Amin in 1977, later absorbed as a Revenue Clerk in 1994, and retired in 2010.

In 2012, he was granted the 1st and 2nd ACP benefits effective from 26.10.2008.

Seeking the 3rd MACP benefit from 2007 (based on 30 years of service from his initial 1977 appointment), he filed CWJC No. 6371 of 2016.

During the pendency of the writ, the District Screening Committee reconsidered and rejected his claim via decisions dated 16.03.2017 and 25.01.2024.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23.04.2024 because the appellant failed to challenge these specific rejection orders.

The appellant preferred this intra-court appeal challenging that dismissal.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the operative decision of the District Screening Committee (dated 25.01.2024) was not specifically challenged.

The court applied the fundamental principle of pleadings and practice that a court cannot grant relief against an order that has not been specifically assailed.

It relied on the precedent established in Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar (1953), which held that a case cannot be decided on grounds outside the pleadings and that courts are not entitled to grant relief not asked for without an amendment to the pleadings.

The Division Bench observed that although the appellant’s claim for the 3rd MACP was rejected by the District Screening Committee during the pendency of the writ proceedings (specifically by the order dated 25.01.2024), the appellant failed to amend his writ petition to quash that specific decision.

Revenue respondents raised a preliminary objection that since the operative order governing the appellant's rights was not under challenge, it could not be examined in an intra-court appeal.

The Court reasoned that an interlocutory application or a rejoinder does not suffice as a substantive challenge to a rejection order.

Applying the Trojan & Co. doctrine, the Court found that the Single Judge correctly declined to adjudicate the merits of the MACP entitlement because the underlying administrative rejection remained unchallenged in the pleadings.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.